Commenting on the story: Public asset now a free land bank for government

Chris Sumner provides a devastating account of how far our politicians have regressed back to the bad old days of alienating public interest in public parks.

But we did vote on the basis that Malinauskas’ party was going to stand up for heritage. We did decide that the open Adelaide park lands was of prime state heritage value after excessive consultation, and had overwhelming public support when it was nominated for listing years ago. The Heritage Council recommended its listing. Successive Ministers have refused to do so. Conservation plans follow heritage listing, not precede it. Where are community rights of third party appeal to challenge these decisions?

Our hope that Labor if re-elected would list the park lands is now dead, thanks to spot rezoning via a flawed process of Code Amendments and Renewal SA being able to put out public lands out for tender by private developers.

The current bureaucracy dutifully does its political bidding; neither the public service nor their political masters seem to comprehend the appalling consequences of putting development of large buildings by alienating the Adelaide park lands and other urban public parks.

What can the public legally do, now that we have neither major party sticking to basic ethics of protecting as well as improving our finite urban open spaces for a growing population, especially now that as Mr Sumner points out, in the time of climate change when public health is directly correlated to access to fresh air, shade and public places to freely enjoy? – Iris Iwanicki

Thank you, Chris Sumner. It’s amazing how so many people have fought to keep our treasured park lands for many decades, yet the current government has completely whitewashed their efforts.

I am glad that you mentioned the relocation of the RAH and that the previously touted “blurb” of returning the old RAH site to the Botanic Gardens/park lands has not occurred. Instead we will have an exorbitantly expensive building in its place, and no free land. So much for political promises!

We should all be aggrieved by the Malinauskas Government’s speedy movement with new legislation for the demolition of the Police Barracks being passed and withdrawing its support legislation to list our parklands as state heritage. Overseas visitors always admire our city for its green belt and spaciousness, but alas, we are on the verge of losing it with poorly considered and reactive decision-making by government.

I certainly do not wish to see the demolition of the Police Barracks or any more free land being consumed by buildings, and I would hope that South Australians will raise their voices as one on this matter. – Paula Furlani

Such a pleasure to hear from Chris Sumner again. In my opinion, one of the more significant and thoughtful achievers of three Labor ministries.

He is right as to the need for the community to speak loudly on this issue. Obviously, the park lands are unique, and priceless, and once they’re gone, they’re gone. He didn’t need to add that the Government also needs to listen. – Stephen Trenowden

Commenting on Your views: on the politics of heritage and more

The ill-informed comments around the new WCH continue unabated in the face of the public promulgation of what should now be immutable facts.

The hospital will be built on the designated site because it is the only safe, structurally realistic and financially responsible option. The loss of the Thebarton Barracks does not mean the loss of our state heritage as we know it. Instead it will provide a stimulus and launching pad for greater Government support for our heritage, both state and local. The old barracks buildings cannot be relocated because they are not structurally robust and they contain asbestos.

The location of the hospital itself will result in a net gain of accessible park lands. The olive grove on the large western section of Kate Cocks Park will be preserved, but the smaller derelict and neglected eastern section will be the site of the hospital carpark. Anyone who has seen this fenced-off, overgrown wilderness would surely not see it as particularly sad loss.

The gaol will be preserved and may incorporate a new centre for the Police Historical Society. The Police Commissioner is comfortable with the transfer of the components of the Barracks to more suitable locations, and the horses and, possibly the dogs, may (appropriately) be accommodated in the park lands if this is the only suitable site.

The mischievous and unsubstantiated suggestions by a past Liberal premier of Victoria and by local luminaries that the hospital will impinge on the National Heritage status of the Parklands has no clear basis, and even if it did it would never be ratified by a federal Labor Environment Minister.

So, this has to be the end of the road for the misguided critics of a much-needed new hospital for the future health of our women and children. Their ill-informed and insubstantial causes are lost. They should now move on to more productive endeavours. – Warren Jones

Commenting on the opinion piece: Labor’s new take on Rann’s ‘announce and defend’ strategy

People voted for an improved and enlarged Women’s and Children’s hospital at the last election. They did not vote to have it built at the expense of state and national heritage places, as is currently proposed. In fact they voted for a Labor government that publicly promised to protect – not demolish – heritage places.

The committee set up to review the Women’s and Children’s Hospital site included representatives from Health, Transport and Infrastructure, Treasury and Finance and Renewal SA.  What it did not include was a representative from the Department of Environment and Water, which includes Heritage SA as well as environmental protection and management. Why not? Was it because they might be inconvenient?

Let’s stop the nonsense about the choice being between a Women’s and Children’s hospital and heritage protection. We can achieve both if we have a government with the foresight and courage to make this decision.

Let’s also stop the fantasy that further development within the Biomedical Precinct, which both major parties have championed, will not require additional rezoning of park lands.  The Biomedical Precinct as currently zoned is full.  Let’s chose a site for the Women’s and Children’s Hospital that allows for the current development, future expansion and further biomedical facilities that is not constrained by park lands or at the expense of our heritage.  The fact that it might not be within a line of sight from the RAH should not be the determining factor. – Nicolette Di Lernia

Matthew Abraham is over-thinking the comparison in ‘style’ between previous modern Labor governments in South Australia and, now, the Malinauskas Government’s ‘style’. I think two words suffice – rampant megalomania. – Philip Groves

An excellent article from Matt Abraham. Hubris and arrogance is a dangerous cocktail for any government. Planning processes that allow the approval of a 55 storey tower, nine of which will be a car park, treating the parklands as vacant land on which to build, and riding roughshod over genuine people’s concerns about the form of the city we love are perfect examples.

In this regard they are no different to the Liberals. Take for granted the voters of the seat of Adelaide at your peril. Lucy Hood should take heed of the message given to her and the planning Minister at their street corner meeting on Saturday morning. Adelaide is a marginal state seat and may well be ripe for the emergence of a high profile teal candidate. – Raffaele Tardivo